Welcome, Guest.
You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

First, I'd like to say hi to everyone as this is my first post. I have been on these forums a few times in the past week and am amazed at the intelligence and friendliness of this community. Props to you all.

Anyway, so I hit my first ever golf ball (excluding mini-golf) only two months ago and was immediately bit by the golf bug. I have been playing with friends' clubs since but now wish to purchase a set of my own. An acquaintance recommended Ping Eye 2 irons and after reading about the clubs they sound like a good place to start.

I think I have a solid grasp about the general history of the clubs but I am confused about the difference between "U" grooves and square grooves. When I read about the groove dilemma, the type of grooves are usually categorized as either "V" grooves or "U"/square grooves. In an article written last year (http://www.usatoday....e-changes_x.htm) and an article written 20 years before that (http://query.nytimes...755C0A961948260) the two types of grooves are treated as if they are the same. However, there obviously is some difference (http://www.equip2gol...2.html~archives), at least cosmetically. So, what I'm wondering is physically what does it actually mean to create a "slight radius at the top of the groove" as apparently the "U" grooves and square grooves are the same except in this one way? And also, what impact does this have on actual play? Surely there must be some effect or else Ping would have never moved from "U" grooves to square grooves right?

You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

According to what I was told by a Ping UK employee many moons ago, Ping instituted the square groove in the mid '80s because it was easier to accurately cast and produce grooves to the required specs than it was to produce the more common 'V' groove. The initially-produced square grooves on the Eye 2 irons had sharp, unradiused edges that had a side effect of maximising spin, particularly from grassy lies. The professionals tried and liked the clubs but found that they caused a great deal of damage to the balata covers of the balls of the time. For professional golfers, for whom performance was paramount and who had an unlimited supply of golf balls, it was no problem; for the average handicap golfer though, the cost was felt to be excessive.

For that reason, Solheim modified the design of the groove by radiusing (i.e. rounding off) the groove edges to produce an edge that was less damaging to the cover of the ball. Under the then USGA/R&A rules, the modification was legal and achieved the desired result. However, by radiusing the groove edges the ruling bodies asserted that Solheim's design made the grooves overly-wide and too close together on the face of the club in terms of the required separation between adjacent grooves. Karsten maintained that under accepted engineering principles, the groove should be measured from the vertical (or near-vertical) wall of the groove and not from the point at which the groove started to make an indentation upon the surface of the club by virtue of the radiused edge.

The issue essentially reared its head publicly after a couple of high profile incidents involving tour players (e.g. Mark Calcavecchia hit a miraculous shot from deep rough at Eagle Trace in his 1987 Honda Classic win that had the blazers up in arms and many high profile names - including Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson - calling the grooves 'unfair' and clamoring for them to be banned).

Karsten and the governing bodies disagreed over the method by which the grooves were measured and a messy affair began in which Solheim asserted that the organisations were wrong and were prejudiced towards the Ping brand in the way that they applied the rule. All sorts of legal challenges resulted over the matter (which represented a distance less than the thickness of a human hair and which was capable of being worn away within a couple of rounds of golf) until such time as a settlement was reached; reportedly in the region of $100 million in damages being paid to Karsten.

In the case of Ping Eye 2 irons - around which the case revolved - there are several types of groove. Early Eye 2s manufactured between approximately 1982 to 1984 have 'V' grooves. Later models, produced for a time during the mid '80s, have the first generation 'square' grooves with unradiused edges; and the latter Eye 2 models have radiused 'U' grooves.

Later models of Ping (including the Eye 2+) had a modified design which met the new standard that was introduced following the whole episode when radiused edges were formalised and regulated by the game's ruling bodies.

In terms of playing Ping irons from that period now, the differences are minimal and the controversial grooves play second fiddle to modern designs in terms of the amount of spin they generate and the advantage they provide in certain circumstances.

Welcome! I am a 30+ year Ping iron player and own the Eye 2's that have the square grove irons you speak of... I hit them for 19 years and moved on to a more forgiving model of Ping since I am getting older, etc. In short, the square grove model gives more spin to the ball, especially out of the thick grass. The grove holds more water, grass, etc. and gives less of a chance to hit a flyer...a shot that goes longer than wanted with less spin. The Eye 2 is a historic club that would be good to own but you can find a good deal on a newer and more forgiving model such as the Zing 2, ISI, or G2. The shaft in most Eye 2's is STIFF and may hurt you in getting the ball up... if that is not a problem, go for the Eye 2's... there is a local golf shop that has a set of Eye 2's (3-pw) for $158. That is a good deal....Bob 5.8 hdcp

According to what I was told by a Ping UK employee many moons ago, Ping instituted the square groove in the mid '80s becasuse it was easier to accurately cast and produce grooves to the rquired specs than it was to produce the more common 'V' groove. The initially-produced square grooves on the Eye 2 irons had sharp, unradiused edges that had a side effect of maximising spin, particularly from grassy lies. The professionals tried and liked the clubs but found that they caused a great deal of damage to the balata covers of the balls of the time. For professional golfers, for whom performance was paramount and who had an unlimited supply of golf balls, it was no problem; for the average handicap golfer though, the cost was felt to be excessive.

For that reason, Solheim modified the design of the groove by radiusing (i.e. rounding off) the groove edges to produce an edge that was less damaging to the cover of the ball. Under the then USGA/R&A rules, the modification was legal and achieved the desired result. However, by radiusing the groove edges the ruling bodies asserted that Solheim's design made the grooves overly-wide and too close together on the face of the club in terms of the required separation between adjacent grooves. Karsten maintained that under accepted engineering principles, the groove should be measured from the vertical (or near-vertical) wall of the groove and not from the point at which the groove started to make an indentation upon the surface of the club by virtue of the raduised edge.

The issue essentially reared it's head publicly after a couple of high profile incidents involving tour players (e.g. Mark Calcavecchia hit a miraculous shot from deep rough at Eagle Trace in his 1987 Honda Classic win that had the blazers up in arms and many high profile names - including Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson - calling the grooves 'unfair' and clamoring for them to be banned).

Karsten and the governing bodies disagreed over the method by which the grooves were measured and a messy affair began in which Solheim asserted that the organisations were wrong and were prejudiced towards the Ping brand in the way that they applied the rule. All sorts of legal challenges resulted over the matter (which represented a distance less than the thickness of a human hair and which was capable of being worn away within a couple of rounds of golf) until such time as a settlement was reached; reportedly in the region of $100 million in damages being paid to Karsten.

In the case of Ping Eye 2 irons - around which the case revolved - there are several types of groove. Early Eye 2s manufactured between approximately 1982 to 1984 have 'V' grooves. Latter models, produced for a time during the mid '80s, have the first generation 'square' grooves with unradiused edges; and the latter eye 2 models have radiussed 'U' grooves.

Latter models of Ping (including the Eye 2+) had a modified design which met the new standard that was introduced following the whole episode when radiused edges were formalised and regulated by the game's ruling bodies.

In terms of playing Ping irons from that period now, the differences are minimal and the controversial grooves play second fiddle to modern designs in terms of the amount of spin they generate and the advantage they provide in certain circumstances.

Excellent post. Mat. There is STILL so much misinformation out there related to Ping's Eye 2 grooves that it is refreshing to get the straight scoop. As for the orginal post, I would recommend getting a nice used set of Eye 2+. They can be had for cheap and are truly great irons. When I returned to golf a couple of years ago after a 20-year absence it took me three of four sets to figure out that Eye 2+ could help me get back into the game. IMO they are one of the very few irons that can be comfortably played by beginners all the way up to single digit players.

As for clubs, I found a set of Eye 2's for just under $200. The set is 3-SW and has a standard lie (which is what I need according to a static fitting). How significant is the difference in terms of playability for a beginner between Eye 2's and Eye 2+'s? I don't have a handicap but if I did it would probably be 35-40. Should I go with the Eye 2's or look for a set of Eye 2+'s?

I've got a set of both Eye 2 and Eye 2+ in beryllium copper in my closet. I played both sets for a while in my teens.

My experience is that they play very similarly except in the case of the wedges which are markedly different in the '+' model due to the altered sole shape and effective bounce. The Eye 2 irons are also weaker-lofted than the Eye 2+ which are closer to 'modern' lofts through the set.

Personally, I think the original irons are the nicer set of the two and for me the better option. Aesthetically they are a little squarer in face profile and the weaker lofts are to my liking.

For a beginner, they're an excellent choice of irons and a design that is still universally popular even today at all levels of play. They last well, retain their value and are capable (in the case of steel-headed models) of being refurbished to 'as new' appearance. 200 dollars buys a set of irons that compare favorably to many brand new, more expensive designs.

So this brings up another question for me. I hear a lot about game improvement irons designed for people with high handicaps. But, since I am literally just beginning, would it not be somewhat of a disservice to me to use a club that diminished my mistakes? I'm wondering if as a beginner it would be better to shy away from the more severe game improvement clubs so that I could have a more clear idea of how my progress at learning the game is coming. What do you think?

One, which is perfectly reasonable, is that you should make the game as easy as possible and use clubs that help get the ball airborne and provide the maximum forgiveness on the inevitable mishits. The reasoning is that a player will learn to hit the ball decently as far as the flight's concerned and be encouraged by what he/she sees such that their interest and enthusiasm is maintained.

The other way, which was the way I learned to play, was to get a set of blades and beat balls on the practice ground until you can hit them solidly. For a long time, my practice regime was literally to hit balls off hardpan with an old Mizuno 1 or 2 iron until I could stripe it more often than not and hit all the different shot shapes. The reasoning was, if you could do that, the first time I got a 4 iron from a nice lie in the fairway it would be like hitting a pitching wedge. I'm not the best player in the world, but the strength of my game is my iron play, and I'm a solid ballstriker through the bag. I firmly believe that it is squarely down to the way I learned to play, with clubs that forced me to hit the ball solidly and with proper technique from day 1.

I'm not saying that learning with a mega-forgiving club design is bad, but I like the 'train hard, fight easy' idea.

Many will argue that the game has changed a bit over the last twenty years and the modern ball means it's less critical to work shots with an altered trajectory or a particular shape and that hitting it straight and a consistent distance is good enough. That's true, but in my view there's still no substitute for solid striking; and my own take is that a solid striker will always have an advantage over someone who hits the ball less well - even when that player is able to equalise things somewhat through technology.

In the case of Eye 2s (or similar designs) they're a good 'middle of the road' club in that they offer a decent level of forgiveness whilst being workable. As a set of irons, they're a great starter set IMO and you'll get enough feedback to know when you made a goof. I know that some people use a blade mid-iron for practice purposes and play more forgiving clubs out on the course - essentially getting the best of both worlds, I suppose. That seems a good idea to me and solid reasoning. Honestly, I'm not a fan of mega-forgiving irons full stop, as I think some of the design aspects (e.g. a very heavy, wide sole) can make them difficult to learn the proper technique with.

In the case of those Pings, I'd say at $200 they're a cracking buy and a good first step into the game.

Between the Eye 2's and the +, I would go with the Eye 2... they have more loft and will be a little easier to hit. I would also agree that this is a middle of the road club... many players have hit the Eye 2 and moved on to blades as they improved and got more serious about the game. The Eye 2 is the kind of club that will do you for life if you wish... Bob

You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

I bought a set of 2+s, 3-SW. I never play them. I just wanted to own a set of them. I have always wanted a set of these. Ever since I was a little kid, all I wanted was a set of Ping Eye 2s/2+s. Someone was selling their set on the cheap, and I bought them up. Heck, I even registered them on Ping.com.

When I went to buy the clubs I realized that the set was the kind with "V" grooves. Is there a significant difference that I would actually notice between the "square" groove Ping Eye 2's and the "V" grooves ones?

When I went to buy the clubs I realized that the set was the kind with "V" grooves. Is there a significant difference that I would actually notice between the "square" groove Ping Eye 2's and the "V" grooves ones?

nice screen name!

I've played them all. ping eyes -> ping eye 2 +'s

For me its really hard to tell any difference in the grooves since everything is used now. The grooves are worn to about the same condition in all the ones I played. I can notice the loft differences but not grooves.

If you had brand new off the line square grooves and new balata balls you would be able to see a spin difference between the other groove shapes. With new balls and used grooves I doubt the difference is measurable, at least it isn't to me.

"Please accept my resignation.
I donít care to belong to any club that
will have me as a member".

Honestly, I wouldn't worry unduly about the grooves on the irons that you're considering. In brand new state, the U grooved Pings were able to impart more spin than the older, V groove models; but, in the real world, there isn't that much difference. The main advantage of square grooves for me is from wet, or grassy lies, and particularly in short irons. From a clean lie in dry conditions, you'll still find that the control will be there. The main difference will be with short irons (e.g. 7 iron down) and in less than perfect conditions, lie-wise. After many years of use the grooves become a bit worn anyway, and even though Pings are amongst the hardiest of clubs in terms of face and groove wear it's likely that the difference between a U grooved set and the V grooves will be negligible after 20 or more years.

I've played Ping wedges on and off for twenty years and my most-worn club, a beryllium Eye 2 sand wedge, can still put plenty enough spin on a shot to pull it back a few yards when hitting into a receptive green - and the grooves on that club are absolutely knackered to the point where they're nearly gone on the bottom third of the club.

As a beginner (or novice) set, I'd say that the feel of them through impact and the look at address are far more important than the grooves they've got. As long as you're comfortable with the look and performance of the irons, that's the main thing in my eyes. If you feel comfortable swinging them, and the shaft (probably a ZZ-Lite?) is something that feels good to you, I'd snap them up and get out on the course with them.

I still say that they're a cracking buy at that price and a great set to learn and develop your game with. To answer your question directly, I'd say don't worry about the grooves at all, and reiterate that the difference is pretty minimal these days.

You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with existing members and access to certain forums. Join our community today and enter into a chance to win a free regular giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry unduly about the grooves on the irons that you're considering. In brand new state, the U grooved Pings were able to impart more spin than the older, V groove models; but, in the real world, there isn't that much difference. The main advantage of square grooves for me is from wet, or grassy lies, and particularly in short irons. From a clean lie in dry conditions, you'll still find that the control will be there. The main difference will be with short irons (e.g. 7 iron down) and in less than perfect conditions, lie-wise. After many years of use the grooves become a bit worn anyway, and even though Pings are amongst the hardiest of clubs in terms of face and groove wear it's likely that the difference between a U grooved set and the V grooves will be negligible after 20 or more years.

I've played Ping wedges on and off for twenty years and my most-worn club, a beryllium Eye 2 sand wedge, can still put plenty enough spin on a shot to pull it back a few yards when hitting into a receptive green - and the grooves on that club are absolutely knackered to the point where they're nearly gone on the bottom third of the club.

As a beginner (or novice) set, I'd say that the feel of them through impact and the look at address are far more important than the grooves they've got. As long as you're comfortable with the look and performance of the irons, that's the main thing in my eyes. If you feel comfortable swinging them, and the shaft (probably a ZZ-Lite?) is something that feels good to you, I'd snap them up and get out on the course with them.

I still say that they're a cracking buy at that price and a great set to learn and develop your game with. To answer your question directly, I'd say don't worry about the grooves at all, and reiterate that the difference is pretty minimal these days.

I agree. You say it so much better.
From what I had read I had the impression that it was a big difference...Till i compared my old square grooves to a set of plus no plus' i picked up a few months back.

Thinking of mixing the sets now.. ping eye2 pw-6 and plus no plus 5-3 for weaker lofts and more perimeter weighting on high irons.

"Please accept my resignation.
I donít care to belong to any club that
will have me as a member".